Let me know how the “loud noises” strategy works out.

ckoeber on August 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Ask ACORN and Code Pink how that stuff works out. They seemed to get quite a bit of sympathy in the press back in the day.

Heck, ACORN even “buses in” people for protests and stuff – remember them and the bus tour to point out the homes of certain AIG employees? That’s not a naked threat against a private citizen, no sir. But that’s okay, they’re “grassroots activists”, not “astroturf” like the TEA parties. /sarc

Speaking of astroturf, are YOU going to “attend at least one public discussion” this month, as Obama’s “Organizing for America” is asking? Just to make sure the “real” public is heard instead of these “too well-dressed” shills for the Insurance companies. /sarc

paraff on August 5, 2009

He’s being true to his nature. Would you have him do otherwise?

We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide “advice and consent,” not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.

This could have been said by Lindsey Graham.

Application of our ideology can’t be ‘thoughtless’. We thought out the ideology.

When did the Republicans commit to imposing radical judges for life, as a “principle”?

I wonder how many people have done the research that he (allegedly) has done.

ProfessorMiao on August 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM

The hearings revealed her to be a mediocrity of the first order. The other Justices will bat her around like a cat toy for 10 years; the Ricci opinions made that clear.

The next justice is more important.

That is why it is a negative rights document, so only those very few things directly granted to government by the people are allowed, and all else reverts to the States and the people. I do not like the SCOTUS missing this on those that raise cattle on their farm and feed themselves from it not being allowed to do so, nor for abortion, nor for those raising plants in their own home or purchasing such within a State in a State allowable method. That pretty much covers all part of the political spectrum and I don’t see the SCOTUS having applied the Constitution and Amendments properly in giving authority to the federal government in those realms.

I see very little discussion by any of the modern Courts on this, and rarely are Amendments IX and X even mentioned. As these are the Guardians of the Constitution and its equal protection to the citizenry, that is highly disturbing. The rights in the Bill of Rights are equal, and the greatest right we have is to NOT have government intrude in our lives and livelihoods. But then that is the Constitution as constructed and amended. I would like to live under that document, but can’t find a Court to enforce it properly. Too many ‘prisms’, too much politics, and too much of the ‘living breathing’ types wanting particular enforcement of one part over another to suit particular biases in rulings… thus making the assured equal protection unequal.

I don’t agree with Mr. Toomey… but then I don’t agree with most anyone on any ‘side’ of the political ‘spectrum’ on this. Strange that a spectrum only has two parts to it, no?

As you can see, he’s only a tiny bit less liberal than Ginsburg.

so I consider a draw. It’s the NEXT judge (when Ginsburg goes) who I’m concerned about.

Its an offense NOT to vote her down, since that is the new way.

….. What could go wrong?

Seven Percent Solution on August 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM

With morons and psychopaths in charge nothing that 1,000 years couldn’t fix.

Gave Toomey the benefit of the doubt. Can use him in congress on other important issues.

What use will he be on other important issues if he can’t even get the easy ones right?

The rallying cry should be: Remember Miguel Estrada – vote no Sotomayor. Simple. Easy. Then go play a round of golf. Darvin Dowdy

Blah.

ckoeber on……………………blah blah blah blah blah

When you decide to debate the issues, well, blah blah blah blah blah blah